You’re right to say that Stefanick may have unfairly conflated intifada with genocide but Stefanick specifically asked about genocide and I believe she was told it was context dependent. The context was October 7.
The pro Palestinian demonstrations were the only violent ones and the campuses tolerating speech like “Hitler was right” is not free speech - it is pro Holocaust and should be punished as should be no tolerance for “from the river to the sea” chant which calls for the obliteration of Israel which is Jewish ancestral land.
I would like for ANY of the presidents to acknowledge that we have two legitimate but conflicting principles. Free speech is not just a right, it is a necessity to free government controlled by The People. The People is all of, us every single one of us. If some group gives itself the power to censor anyone else, legitimate government is over.
With free speech, you will have people saying horrible things. That's the way it goes. But terrorizing and intimidating other students in no way relates to free speech. It is not a right, and must be illegal. There can be a fine line between the two. But it's a line that's not that hard to see.
All of the above is what I wish any of those presidents had said. But they didn't.
Having defenders in 2023 is not mostly about "principles", it's about tribalism. You need to be ID'd as on "the team" or not, or people will leave you out to dry. Normally, this is easy for someone like Claudine Gay, she mouths the standard set of Democratic Party talking points, and gets ID'd as being on the right team, and she is not subject to further question.
But right now she and the other Presidents at the hearing are adrift and thus in crisis because the Democratic Party is the middle of a shift. The standard Democratic Party talking points need a marginalized victim class that they can then speak up for, in the process and just as importantly castigating those responsible for their victimization (Republicans) as the bigots that they are. The Israel-Palestinian question presents real problems because who are the victims and who are the bigots?
So, not having a framework that would produce a standard talking points kind of answer, they brought in outside counsel and ended up reciting a bunch of legalese that they didn't even themselves believe in, that they'd never applied in any analogous circumstances. Not a recipe for PR success!!!
Does it matter who asked Ms Gay the question? The question speaks for itself: Does calling for genocide against Jews violate Harvard's code of conduct on bullying and harassment? Gay hid behind "it depends on the context". She didn't lie, but she spoke only a half truth. In the current Harvard "context" (an ideologically driven culture, spawned and nurtured by oppressor v. victim woke narrative), calls for genocide against Jews do not violate Harvard's code of conduct re harassment and bullying. The issue is she didn't have the courage to speak the "whole truth". She could have said, "It's not a violation," and then she could have added, "But it should be and I'm going to fix it".
The problem with Gay is that she's not a leader. At best, she's a manager. HBS taught me the difference. Harvard can and must do better. If she resigns (and she should), it won't be because of cancel culture. It will be because she lacks a functioning moral compass and doesn't deserve to be in a position of leadership at what was once a world-class institution.
"But instead we have fake controversies that strengthen the hand of those—like Rep. Stefanik—who have no principled commitment to free speech, but only to speech that aligns with their own side. "
But universities and the Left in general don't believe in principled defense of free speech, either. The number of incidents of censorship and deplatforming for wrongthink show that. Remember when the NYTimes newsroom felt unsafe and the head of Op Eds got replaced for publishing Tom Cotton, a US Senator? You might have a hard time figuring out what Claudine Gay actually believes, but you're suggesting here that she defend a principle we know she definitely doesn't hold.
How can she tell you what *she* thinks? Does it really matter what *she* thinks? Because she is a representative. When the institution you represent apparently has no clarity on what it believes and waffles as needed, can she represent the institution, be prepped by CYA lawyers, and do anything besides semi-artfully waffle? I doubt it. Like all managers everywhere, she's gotta' try and make both sides happy. In a university that's a Fool's Errand if ever there was one.
It's the Gods' on Mount Olympus big joke on us: "OK so let's round up all the stupidest, most intellectually and morally corrupt people in America and put them.......in the UNIVERSITIES! That'll be fun".
Before Claudine Gay was the President of the university, she was the Dean of the Faculty. While in this position, she made a decision to terminate Ron Sullivan -- the first Black dean of a house at Harvard -- because a group of students complained that his having consulted on the Harvey Weinstein case made them feel unsafe. In her explanation for his termination, she set a new standard for deans at Harvard. She stated that deans must play a "pastoral role" to students, ensuring that they feel safe. If Ron Sullivan as a dean had this obligation, then surely Claudine Gay as President must meet the same standard.
The left and right are talking past each other with over-reaching statements (and inflammatory questions) to score brownie points with their bases. Have heard these exact words from both sides: [“...who have no principled commitment to free speech, but only to speech that aligns with their own side. For them [Republicans], it is about power, dominance, and imposition.”]. To us plain folk, it’s a constant game of chicken with no one backing down; and it’s boring to most of us peeps just trying to get along. So who will take the leadership role and get them talking TO each other? Clearly Fox News and MSNBC aren’t helping find the compromises that need to be made. I’m not a fan of Biden, but we need to hear “C’mon man!” more often to cut thru the bs posturing from both sides.
It’s been obvious to me that Shadi Hamid is much more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, and I’ve appreciated seeing him struggle to find his footing. However, what I can’t stand are little lies like these sprinkled in his posts (and he’s not the only trying-to-be-middle-of-the-road-but obviously-pro-Palestine journalist who does this):
“...the first Palestinian intifada, a popular, largely nonviolent uprising. (Very few, if any, uprisings anywhere have been completely nonviolent.”
Literally Hamas started their suicide bombings in the 1st intifada! Like, what?? And the PLO wanted to wipe Israel off the map. I don’t understand where these people on the left are getting their historical information.
Yes, I agree it's important university presidents stand for things but I see no problem if they stand for them back in the office after getting help with how to word the statement.
Speaking extemporaneously in public in response to hostile questioning by politicians is hard and it's much worse if you know that your response will be excerpted in the worst possible way. Lots of smart articulate people of principle would be caught out in such a situation because they aren't thinking about how the answer will sound without surrounding context.
In that environment it seems totally appropriate to simply train yourself to speak in a tactical manner to waste time and avoid saying anything clearly. Yes, it's bad to smirk but it's also difficult to show genuine emotion about the subject matter when the actual experience you're going through is entirely about a gotcha word game not that substance.
Having said all that I don't think these presidents have made the appropriate strong statements they should have even with staff help. If Dean Cherminsky can make the kind of points he has made the presidents could certainly do better than they have.
You’re right to say that Stefanick may have unfairly conflated intifada with genocide but Stefanick specifically asked about genocide and I believe she was told it was context dependent. The context was October 7.
The pro Palestinian demonstrations were the only violent ones and the campuses tolerating speech like “Hitler was right” is not free speech - it is pro Holocaust and should be punished as should be no tolerance for “from the river to the sea” chant which calls for the obliteration of Israel which is Jewish ancestral land.
100 percent.
I would like for ANY of the presidents to acknowledge that we have two legitimate but conflicting principles. Free speech is not just a right, it is a necessity to free government controlled by The People. The People is all of, us every single one of us. If some group gives itself the power to censor anyone else, legitimate government is over.
With free speech, you will have people saying horrible things. That's the way it goes. But terrorizing and intimidating other students in no way relates to free speech. It is not a right, and must be illegal. There can be a fine line between the two. But it's a line that's not that hard to see.
All of the above is what I wish any of those presidents had said. But they didn't.
Having defenders in 2023 is not mostly about "principles", it's about tribalism. You need to be ID'd as on "the team" or not, or people will leave you out to dry. Normally, this is easy for someone like Claudine Gay, she mouths the standard set of Democratic Party talking points, and gets ID'd as being on the right team, and she is not subject to further question.
But right now she and the other Presidents at the hearing are adrift and thus in crisis because the Democratic Party is the middle of a shift. The standard Democratic Party talking points need a marginalized victim class that they can then speak up for, in the process and just as importantly castigating those responsible for their victimization (Republicans) as the bigots that they are. The Israel-Palestinian question presents real problems because who are the victims and who are the bigots?
So, not having a framework that would produce a standard talking points kind of answer, they brought in outside counsel and ended up reciting a bunch of legalese that they didn't even themselves believe in, that they'd never applied in any analogous circumstances. Not a recipe for PR success!!!
Does it matter who asked Ms Gay the question? The question speaks for itself: Does calling for genocide against Jews violate Harvard's code of conduct on bullying and harassment? Gay hid behind "it depends on the context". She didn't lie, but she spoke only a half truth. In the current Harvard "context" (an ideologically driven culture, spawned and nurtured by oppressor v. victim woke narrative), calls for genocide against Jews do not violate Harvard's code of conduct re harassment and bullying. The issue is she didn't have the courage to speak the "whole truth". She could have said, "It's not a violation," and then she could have added, "But it should be and I'm going to fix it".
The problem with Gay is that she's not a leader. At best, she's a manager. HBS taught me the difference. Harvard can and must do better. If she resigns (and she should), it won't be because of cancel culture. It will be because she lacks a functioning moral compass and doesn't deserve to be in a position of leadership at what was once a world-class institution.
"But instead we have fake controversies that strengthen the hand of those—like Rep. Stefanik—who have no principled commitment to free speech, but only to speech that aligns with their own side. "
But universities and the Left in general don't believe in principled defense of free speech, either. The number of incidents of censorship and deplatforming for wrongthink show that. Remember when the NYTimes newsroom felt unsafe and the head of Op Eds got replaced for publishing Tom Cotton, a US Senator? You might have a hard time figuring out what Claudine Gay actually believes, but you're suggesting here that she defend a principle we know she definitely doesn't hold.
How can she tell you what *she* thinks? Does it really matter what *she* thinks? Because she is a representative. When the institution you represent apparently has no clarity on what it believes and waffles as needed, can she represent the institution, be prepped by CYA lawyers, and do anything besides semi-artfully waffle? I doubt it. Like all managers everywhere, she's gotta' try and make both sides happy. In a university that's a Fool's Errand if ever there was one.
It's the Gods' on Mount Olympus big joke on us: "OK so let's round up all the stupidest, most intellectually and morally corrupt people in America and put them.......in the UNIVERSITIES! That'll be fun".
Is the University of Chicago the last true defender of free expression in academia?
Before Claudine Gay was the President of the university, she was the Dean of the Faculty. While in this position, she made a decision to terminate Ron Sullivan -- the first Black dean of a house at Harvard -- because a group of students complained that his having consulted on the Harvey Weinstein case made them feel unsafe. In her explanation for his termination, she set a new standard for deans at Harvard. She stated that deans must play a "pastoral role" to students, ensuring that they feel safe. If Ron Sullivan as a dean had this obligation, then surely Claudine Gay as President must meet the same standard.
The left and right are talking past each other with over-reaching statements (and inflammatory questions) to score brownie points with their bases. Have heard these exact words from both sides: [“...who have no principled commitment to free speech, but only to speech that aligns with their own side. For them [Republicans], it is about power, dominance, and imposition.”]. To us plain folk, it’s a constant game of chicken with no one backing down; and it’s boring to most of us peeps just trying to get along. So who will take the leadership role and get them talking TO each other? Clearly Fox News and MSNBC aren’t helping find the compromises that need to be made. I’m not a fan of Biden, but we need to hear “C’mon man!” more often to cut thru the bs posturing from both sides.
It’s been obvious to me that Shadi Hamid is much more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, and I’ve appreciated seeing him struggle to find his footing. However, what I can’t stand are little lies like these sprinkled in his posts (and he’s not the only trying-to-be-middle-of-the-road-but obviously-pro-Palestine journalist who does this):
“...the first Palestinian intifada, a popular, largely nonviolent uprising. (Very few, if any, uprisings anywhere have been completely nonviolent.”
Literally Hamas started their suicide bombings in the 1st intifada! Like, what?? And the PLO wanted to wipe Israel off the map. I don’t understand where these people on the left are getting their historical information.
A perfect example of why free speech MUST BE the bedrock university culture and the USA at large.
This is perfect except who cares if she's fired.
Yes, I agree it's important university presidents stand for things but I see no problem if they stand for them back in the office after getting help with how to word the statement.
Speaking extemporaneously in public in response to hostile questioning by politicians is hard and it's much worse if you know that your response will be excerpted in the worst possible way. Lots of smart articulate people of principle would be caught out in such a situation because they aren't thinking about how the answer will sound without surrounding context.
In that environment it seems totally appropriate to simply train yourself to speak in a tactical manner to waste time and avoid saying anything clearly. Yes, it's bad to smirk but it's also difficult to show genuine emotion about the subject matter when the actual experience you're going through is entirely about a gotcha word game not that substance.
Having said all that I don't think these presidents have made the appropriate strong statements they should have even with staff help. If Dean Cherminsky can make the kind of points he has made the presidents could certainly do better than they have.